Pritam Singh
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I hear what the Minister has said. I am also sure the Minister has understood where the Workers' Party Members of Parliament are coming from. And I also would like to add that as the Opposition, we come to this House to scrutinise Bills and it is our duty to ask those questions.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I am empathetic to the arguments of efficiency and ensuring that patients can see a polyclinic doctor or consultation as quickly as possible. I understand the Senior Minister of State mentioned it is important to try and make a make an appointment so that your waiting time is within a certain period.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a question for the Minister of State. Does the Ministry capture the total amount of monies recovered from Singaporeans who are victims of scams?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a point of order. I believe the Senior Minister of State, in his wrapping-up speech, referred to a speech made by a Member who did not deliver a speech in Parliament on the Bill, that is, hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar. I would just like to confirm whether that is as per the Standing Orders of Parliament.”
“Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Sitting on 7 April 2026, I rose to seek a clarification on the joint Ministerial Statement on the situation in the Middle East.”
“Thank you, Speaker. The Minister of State mentioned meaningful impact a few times, so I will give an example. The KPI in the Budget Book, "the percentage of patients who waited less than or at least 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics", for example, for each fiscal year, 2023, 2024, 2025 – the number is 99%.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,762 lines we hold for Pritam Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 36.
“Chairman, following the announcement this year of the arrest of the 16-year-old radicalised Christian youth who plotted terror attacks at two mosques, it was important to hear the reassurances from the Minister of State for Home Affairs – that the authorities have taken increased steps to reach out to youth through social media and other means to counter radical threats. The case was a good reminder that religious extremism can come from anywhere, because any religion can be misused. None is exempt. At a time like this, the population may need to be reassured that the Government is on top of things not only from an operational standpoint, but that Government policy is strictly secular and neither favours nor is influenced by religious beliefs from any quarter. Religious extremism when exposed, is obvious and rejected by all, including ordinary adherents of that religion. There is no danger that Government policy will be anything other than strongly against extremism. But is there a risk of the subtle influencing of policy by religious persons who are not necessarily radical? Is there a danger in Singapore that laws and policies could be tilted towards particular religious beliefs, for example, because of the dominant religious beliefs of senior civil servants, or people of influence, if not now, maybe sometime in future. I would like to ask the Government if it has considered such matters, and if so, whether it intends to roll out strategies to counter such a possible risk to Singapore's secular principles. This may be a good time to revisit the 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony, which was a very different time in terms of interpersonal communication. For example, one issue the White Paper sought to deal with was insensitive proselytisation.”
“To address public talk of inequality and double standards or perceptions of the same, it would be important for the CPIB and investigatory authorities to consider interim updates in view of the length of time that has elapsed since the news of the investigations broke. In the Keppel case, many remain perplexed why the authorities are taking so long to complete investigations, especially in light of Keppel officials who have been anonymously fingered in publicly available US Department of Justice documents. In November 2019, Keppel Offshore and Marine's lawyer who admitted to drafting contracts to make bribe payments was sentenced to a year's probation and fined $75,000 in the US. Although a US citizen, the district judge allowed the lawyer in question to serve his probation in Singapore where he resides with his wife. What is holding up the investigations into the Keppel matter? Because it does not seem fathomable that the company can admit to offences but at the same time, there is insufficient evidence to lay at the feet of senior Keppel officials thus far. Separately, when can the public anticipate a closure to the FAS matter? And finally, I call on the Government to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act to raise the penalties for corruption. Updating Prevention of Corruption Act”
“The goodwill and confidence generated for high quality investments by a strong emphasis against corruption through the Singapore brand cannot be understated. CPIB be cannot afford for Singaporeans to be heedless of the corruption that exists in the country and double down on public education of its work. In the Minister for Law's Parliamentary speech last November, the Minister spoke of the zeitgeist that is being felt worldwide with many societies grappling with debates about inequality and the sense that the elites are bending the rules and systems to their own advantage and that the structures are unfair. Sir, to this end, it would be useful to recall some high profile cases that have been splashed across our newspapers in the years past involving people in high places. The Keppel Offshore and Marine or KOM scandal come to mind as does the CAD raid of S-League clubs and the Football Association of Singapore, which saw the arrest of our former Member of Parliament allegedly involved in $0.5 million donation to the ASEAN Football Federation. I understand that investigations can take some time to complete but in view of the profile of the latter two cases in particular which involve people have some status, there is a real public interest as to why these matters have not closed yet. In the public mind, the inordinate delay in investigations is commonly juxtaposed against the publication of names, images and details of individuals splashed prominently in our papers, involving relatively petty amounts that constitute corruption like the $1 bribe, and rightly so.”
“Mr Chairman, a Straits Times article in December last year provided a snapshot into the state of corruption in Singapore today. One of the opening lines was, and I quote, "Many people are heedless of the corruption that exists in squeaky clean Singapore, but graft remains prevalent." Over the last three to four years, the number of high profile corruption revelations have come to light. In 2018, two Chinese Nationals, both of whom were forklift drivers were charged for collecting multiple bribes of $1 in exchange for not delaying the loading and unloading of vehicles. Both drivers were fined and jailed between two to four months. An equally significant case came to light this year when a brother and sister were handed jail terms close to the maximum five years for conspiring to secure tenders for two companies in China and receiving in excess of $2 million in bribes. The case was significant because a substantive part of the offence was committed outside Singapore. But because the Prevention of Corruption Act applies and has extraterritorial effect, the message was a clear one. Corruption committed by Singaporeans and Singapore corporate entities are not condoned anywhere in the world. Yet, the remark of graft remaining prevalent in our paper of record, no less, is a matter of concern. While the Government is busy determining how best to reset the economy and put Singapore ahead of the pack when the post COVID-19 recovery begins, the core Singaporean value of a no-nonsense attitude towards corruption needs to be restated more forcefully. At stake is the reputation of the Singapore brand in a world where competition is stiffening and strong sustained growth harder to come by for a mature economy like ours.”
“Mr Speaker, I understand that when there is a Budget debate, it is again part of the rules of debate, that when I bring up a subject matter, that is the subject matter I want to talk about. I am not sure another Member has capacity than to ask me about a matter I have not spoken about. So, just as a point of order, I think we should make that clear. I mean, the Standing Orders exist for a reason, I suppose. And insofar as the Minister's answers on Capability Transfer Programme, other issues being dealt with in the Committee of Supply, I can accept those answers. I can ask my questions during the Committee of Supply.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, this is essentially a question, as I mentioned in my first intervention about Organs of State. You have the Ministry of Finance, you have Political Office Holders who drive the agenda of that Ministry and you have a parliamentary platform where the proposed Parliament Budget Officer will sit. Two different functions completely independent of what Government is saying about the outcomes, because that is an independent perspective and that is something for Parliament who is going to approve the Budget. Those who are approving the Budget ought to have access to an independent analysis. And that is what the Parliament Budget Officer will give.”
“Mr Speaker, I can assure the Leader that it will be the same thing.”
“Mr Speaker, I am not sure whether Leader can phrase it that way because the Independent Fiscal Council, that cut has not been delivered. So, there is terminology. I think IMF refers to all these different agencies within Parliament as Fiscal Councils, but perhaps we should wait for Member Jamus Lim to deliver his cut. Then, the clarification would be obvious.”
“The Parliament Budget Office that I had shared in my speech in this debate about, actually mirrors the Canadian model, the Canadian Parliament Budget Office. Or under the Parliament of Canada Act, I believe it is called Parliament Budget Officer. So, the second question is then answered: no, it is not the same proposal that has not been delivered by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.”
“But this group of private hire bus drivers; there was support rendered in the subsequent Budgets from the Unity Budget. One of the most important interventions was to subsidise the cost of parking in HDB estates for these private hire bus drivers. And that was extended to March 2021. Can I ask Minister Heng whether this extension would continue for this group of workers, because the tourism industry is decimated?”
“And in my speech, I asked Deputy Prime Minister Heng – for which I do not believe a clarification was forthcoming – about the headline $24 billion figure which is a multi-year initiative, questions about the accountability of this figure, how are we going to look back at this figure and say that money has been spent prudently? The second point is with regard to the Capability Transfer Programme. I believe I had some questions about it and fundamentally again, the Minister committed until 2024, I believe. And I had some questions about how many Singaporeans were trained? The Minister gave the number: less than 970. And my query also sought information on how much money was spent on this initiative and whether these outcomes are outcomes that the Government is satisfied with. I do not believe that was answered. My third point is a carryover from the Unity Budget. The Minister made the point about a remark I had made, elbow room, more fiscal elbow room than any other government. I think that is factually true. More revenues, certainly, more expenditure, but certainly more revenues as well for the Government to spend and to consider how to lay out its plans. So, there is nothing factually inaccurate about that. But I would come to the point of the Driver Support Programme or the various programmes that the Government has laid out for private hire drivers. In the Unity Budget, I spoke about another community of individuals – private hire bus drivers – and many of them support the tourism sector. I think in this Budget with the JSS being extended to severely-hit sectors like aviation, I am sure the workers in that industry, the companies in that industry, appreciate the support.”
“A point of order, Mr Speaker. The Committee of Supply debates have not begun. That figure was specific to a cut. I believe the MOF officials have asked Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim to deliver points for and it should not really be part of this debate. But having said that, that was with regard to, I believe, a fiscal office and the cut has not been delivered. Let me carry on with my clarification questions, Sir. The Parliament Budget Office or the Parliamentary Budget Office is not an unusual institution in many parliamentary democracies. It is a fairly new institution and, really, it is not to help the Opposition in Parliament. It is to help all Members of Parliament. This is constant with the separation of power schema. I was a Member of the Estimates Committee some years ago, and I will never forget – and those Members of Parliament who were Members of the Estimates Committee will also remember – a senior civil servant said, "I cannot be smarter than my boss". Who is her boss? Her boss is the Minister for Finance. And so, a Parliament Budget Office or officer is there to provide independent analysis to confirm the nature of the Budget, to confirm that programmes are delivering the outcomes that are desired. As was quite eloquently put by the Member for Aljunied, Mr Leon Perera, who said it is not just about getting an "A" for effort, it is about scoring and "A" for outcomes. And to that end, as I acknowledged in my speech, and Deputy Prime Minister Heng also shared in his Round-up speech, the Budget is not about a one-year programme. It is about a multi-year programme.”
“Mr Speaker, can I ask that the Workers' Party's Member who gave that figure to please clarify. Was that figure actually given?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I have three questions and clarifications for the Deputy Prime Minister. Before I start, can I ask Deputy Prime Minister Heng where did he get the figure of $20 million for a Parliament Budget Office from?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you. Rules of debate. It is, of course, up to the Member if he wants to give way. I just wanted to ask whether Mr Alex Yam could identify which Workers' Party Members made the points that he is suggesting so that they can rebut him later on in the course of the debate.”
“And beyond the points that I have made in my speech, I thank the hon Member Ms Denise Phua for her clarifications.”
“Thank you. Yes, it will be helpful to hear from the other Mayors. I think my question is certainly put out there already. It is for the Government now to determine the approach that they want to take in terms of whether Mayors should be a full-time or a part-time appointment given the comments I have made about the scope of responsibility. I have made my point and it is now really in the Government's hands. I would also like to make a point about this issue that the hon Member Denise Phua made about public mindshare. This has been a problem, in my view, for the longest time. It is not just something recently that has cropped up. I will quote the Hansard. This is again from the 2002 COS debates. Mayor Zainal Abidin Rasheed, the predecessor in my constituency of Eunos, was the Mayor of Northeast CDC. And these are his verbatim remarks at that debate: "Recently, Radio 93.8 started a series of programmes where they interviewed Mayors and staff of the CDCs to explain and to talk about the CDCs. To my surprise, most of those who were interviewed by Radio 93.8 claimed that they were not aware of what the CDC was all about and they do not even know who their Mayors were despite the fact that we have carried out quite a number of activities." And, of course, it goes on. I think the point here is nobody is questioning the projects that the CDC runs. The question is: is it ostensibly possible that these projects also could be carried out with charities, some of whom have a huge footprint not dissimilar to very worthy initiatives that the hon Member Ms Denise Phua herself helms, like the Purple Parade. So, I think that there is a very valid question as to the roles and functions of the CDCs.”
“ComCare is primarily handled by the SSOs. Many other functions are now not in the hands of the CDCs anymore. And concomitantly, the budget of the CDCs has reduced significantly. So, I think the question which the hon Member Ms Denise Phua did not answer is: is it still viable for Mayors to be full-time? I would like to hear her reply to that.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker and thank you to the hon Member Ms Denise Phua. I expected a robust response to my speech; and indeed, Ms Denise Phua's comments are not surprising. Let me start with a very straightforward preamble. When I called for a review of whether Mayors should be full-time, this was not a personal vendetta against the current Mayors or Mayors who have been full-time Mayors in the CDCs before. Neither was it an indictment against the programmes that are run by the CDCs. But having said that, it is helpful for us to take a look back at the evolution of the CDCs. I think Ms Denise Phua tried to do that but I do not think she provided a complete picture. I will attempt to do so. When the CDCs were first formed in 1996/1997, the Mayors were not full-time; they were part-time. They became full-time appointments, to my understanding, after the General Elections in 2001. And that is because the trajectory of the Government thinking at that time was Government programmes, ComCare assistance, KiFAS, things which are done by MOE today, for example, would go through the CDCs. Selection of where childcare offices or childcare centres also came through the CDCs and the budget of the CDCs was proportionately increased. It is helpful to look at the Hansard of that era, specifically Committee of Supply (COS) 2002. The budget of the CDCs was increased from $19 million in 1997 to $153 million in 2001. So, you find the evolution of the CDCs, I think, best encapsulated by what Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said when he was Minister, MCYS, I believe, in 2010 or thereabouts. The Minister said all Government schemes go through the CDCs. This is what was said in Parliament, it is on the Hansard. Is that the case today? A lot of roles have devolved.”
“First, can Minister confirm if any assessment has been carried out as to the inflationary effect of a rise in petrol duties and its impact on cost of living for Singaporeans, particularly in this economic climate? Second, is the Government prepared to proactively look into the prospects of profiteering by unscrupulous businesses that seem to ride on this increase in petrol duties? To conclude, Mr Speaker, there remain many uncertainties about the pace and unevenness of an economic recovery across sectors. As a hub economy, until the aviation sector reopens in a significant way and the movement of people across our borders returns to some semblance of normalcy, a sense that the Singapore growth engine is not able to fire on all cylinders is likely to persist given our reliance on the global economy. But the opportunity for a reset in some aspects is clear. With a tighter fiscal environment in the years ahead, as stressed by the Deputy Prime Minister Heng over many speeches, closer scrutiny of expenditure should not be seen one dimensionally as political one-upmanship, but as an administrative necessity. The scrutiny raises everyone's sense of ownership in Singapore. It should logically extend to the outcomes of Budget initiatives for Singapore and workers and their success in transitioning to high value-added jobs. They should be consistently reviewed especially since significant fiscal resources are being deployed across a number of years. The relevance of institutions whose roles and functions substantively overlap with other state agencies should also be reconsidered, with finite fiscal resources redeployed to support the low-income and needy. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my interventions above I support the Budget.”
“Did the Deputy Prime Minister consider a phased and gradual increase of the petrol duties in step with the availability of EVs as a realistic consumer choice and a rise in their numbers on the roads in the years to come? Furthermore, given the economic environment and uncertainty, there is a real prospect of a simultaneous cost of living pain-point, with the Government committed to raise the GST well before the General Elections, and in my estimation at least, over a window that traverses 2022 to 2023, after the petrol duty subsidies ends. For middle class Singaporeans or the "sandwiched class" who do not qualify for the full extent of GST subsidies in particular, and for whom EVs may not be a compelling option in the short term, the next few years may well precipitate added cost of living pressures. Sir, I acknowledge the rebates the Minister has announced alongside the petrol duty hike. These are expected to offset the petrol duty hike of up to a year for taxis and motorcycles, and around seven to eight months for cars. Even so, I urge the Government to review this Budget announcement and implement a more thoughtfully phased in increase of the petrol duty in proportion to the actual growth of EV usage on the roads. The rebates proposed can be given out in a similarly phased manner. Such a move will be fairer for road users, as compared to the Minister's current plan, which is also implicitly contingent on a large number of EV charging points becoming available in 12 months' time when the subsidies end. In comparison, the Government's roadmap for 60,000 EV points has 2030 as its end date. With regard to the rise in petrol duty, I have two additional questions for the Minister.”
“On the CDC vouchers, out of the $150 million being allocated to resource the latest initiative, how much is allocated for the scheme per se, and separately how much constitutes the amount allocated for the administration of the programme, as this is unclear in the Deputy Prime Minister's speech? In the third and final area of my speech, Sir, I refer to where the Minister spoke of building a sustainable home for all. The science and environment correspondent of The Straits Times, in an article of 11 February 2021, observed that upon closer inspection, the Government's Singapore Green Plan 2030 was, and I quote, "more or less a compilation of existing sustainability initiatives" unquote, even as she acknowledged there were some new targets worth watching. As such, the decision to raise petrol duties came like an ill-timed bolt from the blue. The Government's move towards a future where electric vehicles replace internal combustion vehicles is arguably one central plank of the Green Plan, nudging Singaporeans to select more environmentally friendly vehicles. However, there is much frustration and unhappiness on the ground with respect to the timing of the hike in petrol prices to support this goal. The main reason for this is that the infrastructure and registration regime for a greater adoption of EVs has not even been rolled out in great numbers, but yet, the petrol duty hike was implemented immediately on Budget Day. Even the road tax rebate is slated only to kick in six months later. So, many Singaporeans are asking why do petrol duties go up immediately all at one go?”
“My final query is with regard to the implementing agency of the scheme. The CDCs have come into the spotlight after the last General Elections because many Singaporeans are of the view that the salaries of Mayors are outrageous, principally because they are not perceived to commensurate with a Mayor's roles and functions today. Other Singaporeans of the view that the CDCs' functions can be carried out by other existing entities or by Ministries and Statutory Boards, including other organisations under the People's Association, particularly since the social footprint of each CDC is uneven and can differ greatly compared to another. Yet, others simply do not know what the CDCs do. Effectively, the need for full-time Mayors continues to be widely questioned and it would appear that there is scope for a serious review of the necessity of having full-time Mayors today. On the CDC voucher specifically, it is widely known that the representatives of Merchants Associations are commonly represented on the Citizens' Consultative Committees, and there is one for each ward or constituency. It would follow that these local bodies like CCCs are even more closely connected to the ground than the five CDCs, rendering the CDCs' role in the voucher scheme potentially superfluous. Sir, it would appear to me, as if the Government is trying to find some way to make the CDCs relevant, in view of their relative absence in the public mind share. The Government allocated $20 million to the CDCs in the Unity Budget last year and this increased to $75 million a month later in the Resilience Budget. This injection is equal to all the reserves of the CDCs put together, according to the CDCs' FY2018 Annual Report.”
“This would also be consistent with the findings of the Government’s Emerging Stronger Conversations thus far which, after 88 conversations involving 4,400 participants, finds social support – covering issues like dignity of the less privileged, protection of vulnerable segments, and support for giving and volunteerism – ranked as the most discussed topic. Sir, one major purpose of the CDC vouchers, as expressed by Minister Heng is to benefit heartland shops and hawkers. This cannot be objectionable and, indeed, given the revenue and scale of operations of some of these heartland shops, incentives to purchase the goods and services they offer would indeed be helpful for shop owners and proprietors. This use of CDC vouchers follows the intervention of the former Workers' Party Member of Parliament for Hougang, Mr Png Eng Huat, who, in his Unity Budget speech last year, queried whether the Grocery vouchers announced in the Unity Budget ought to have been allowed for use in neighbourhood mom-and-pop shops as well, rather than the bigger supermarket chains only. As a follow-up, may I ask the Minister to clarify the current scheme? The Minister’s statement does not say whether the CDC vouchers can also be used at Giant, Sheng Siong, Prime or NTUC FairPrice, for example. I would suggest that the current scheme be focused solely on heartland shops and hawkers, of which there is a broad range, such as local provision shops, Chinese sinsehs or traditional Chinese medicine providers, fruit sellers, barbers, hairdressers and so forth. There is a risk that if this is not done, the bulk of the vouchers would be spent at supermarkets, like NTUC FairPrice, and bypass the heartland shops. If the major supermarket chains are involved, the scheme could effectively mirror a cash top-up.”
“Beyond Social Services is a community organisation which reaches out to 64 rental blocks where more than 10,000 individuals live. This represents a fairly large and determinative sample of Singapore’s rental housing population. Beyond Social Services launched its COVID-19 Family Assistance Fund in March 2020 and, in six months, had committed over $3 million to more than 1,900 families. The organisation released a report earlier this month and some findings read starkly. Post-COVID-19, the median household income from work fell from $1,600 to $500, a 69% drop. The median per capita income fell 74% from $425 to $113, and 35% of FAF applicants saw their income drop to $0. I have to clarify that these numbers do not take into account the not insignificant COVID-19 financial assistance pumped in by the Government over the course of the last year. That said, according to Deputy Prime Minister Heng in his comments to CNA over the weekend, the inequality situation measured by the Gini coefficient has actually improved over the past year. It, therefore, appears that there is divergence in what the absolute data on inequality reveals and what the lived experience is on the ground in our rental flats. I hope the Government will look into this more deeply, to assess how COVID-19 has affected our low-income households and their employment prospects. Moving forward, the disbursement of additional assistance through other vouchers and schemes from the Contingencies Fund targeted at households in public rental units should be seriously considered throughout the course of this financial year.”
“In fact, it would be in step with Deputy Prime Minister Heng's call for fiscal prudence and add an important element of public accountability and transparency in light of the massive drawdown of reserves to fight COVID-19. Sir, in response to the Minister's Resilience and Solidarity Budgets of last April, I spoke of the lessons of COVID-19 raising the prospect of sectors that could be manned by more Singaporean workers for better resilience and national outcomes. I spoke of what a living wage ought to be for those who man our critical infrastructure and keep the country's heart beating. Like many Singaporeans, a high point for me in Deputy Prime Minister Heng's Budget was the announcement of a hike in the salaries of our nurses and healthcare professionals. A crisis usually leaves lasting lessons about those you can count on and who are always there in one's most challenging times. Healthcare workers deserve their raise. I would urge the Government to look at reviewing the wages of other front-liners and, particularly, essential workers like our waste disposal workers, transport workers and many others who proved indispensable in this COVID-19 fight. The second part of my speech covers the Minister's comments on strengthening the nation's social compact. My key query in this section pertains to the announcement of the disbursement of $100 worth of Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers to all households to be used at participating heartland shops and hawker centres. Sir, the Singaporeans who have borne the brunt of COVID-19 are the low-income. Government schemes, ranging from SIRS to various COVID-19 grants, have certainly helped stave off hardship. But there are, nonetheless, serious concerns about the state of these families and households today.”
“For example, while the reports state the number of successful placements and chart the salary range for major job roles in specific sectors, there is little detail on the salary levels and the age ranges of those who have been successfully placed, particularly those in long-term jobs. Sir, outcomes for our mature workers are an important bellwether for the Government's initiatives. Shortly before COVID-19 struck, the tripartite partners acknowledged the importance of strengthening support for older workers through a range of measures, including progressively raising the CPF contribution of older workers in the years to come. The public should be given greater insight into the effectiveness of multibillion-dollar initiatives that aim to improve job opportunities and outcomes for all our workers, but especially our mature workers. This is in light of the fact that a significant number of workers will also enter their 50s by 2030. The effectiveness of Government measures should be readily determinable. Without such scrutiny, a perception may crystallise of large sums of money being deployed to address an issue for which effectiveness is hard to establish. This follows on from my call in September for more and not less information from the Government. I encourage Singaporeans to look out for the reports of the Estimates Committee, a standing parliamentary Select Committee, one of whose roles is to examine the Government's Budget. If the Government were to consider a more aggressive reset in this regard, the establishment of an independent parliamentary Budget Office may well be another complementary addition towards the judicious use and accountability of taxpayer dollars.”
“The example that the Minister highlighted in his Budget speech of a technical officer at SP Services learning new skills in network support for the rollout of advanced electricity meters, suggests there is significant downstream reach of the CTP, regardless of industry. In extending the CTP until 2024, can the Minister share what has been achieved by the programme for the Singaporean worker thus far and how much money has been spent on it? What skillsets have been transferred to Singaporean workers by sector, and which industry clusters is the Government earmarking for greater talent transfer through the CTP? I also seek greater clarity on the Minister's commitment of $24 billion to enable firms and workers to emerge stronger. Can the Minister detail what this multi-year allocation entails? More importantly, in view of the headline numbers, how does the Government plan to release information and account for the tangible and intangible outcomes of the money spent on these multi-year initiatives? In a similar vein, Mr Speaker, the Minister shared that an additional $5.4 billion would be allocated to a second SGUnited Jobs and Skills package, on top of the $3 billion allocated last year. Sir, from 11 August last year, MOM has been releasing weekly job situation reports providing updates on the SGUnited Jobs and Skills package. After the seventh weekly report, the reports stopped becoming weekly. Instead, periodic reports were released, focusing on the available opportunities in each sector on a monthly basis. The public sector opportunities are significantly funded by the Government. As such, the job situation reports need to be buttressed with significantly more detail.”
“First, on emerging stronger with skilled workers and innovative businesses. Sir, in my opening speech in this parliamentary term, I cautioned about the lived reality of the Singaporean worker in light of foreign competition in his or her own country. Deputy Prime Minister Heng said in his speech that a balance has to be struck with the focus on the complementarity of local and foreign manpower, alongside the stepping up of industry transformation. As such, I was surprised by the relatively small number of Singaporeans who have benefited from the Capability Transfer Programme, or CTP. Fewer than 970 Singaporeans have benefited thus far. The CTP funds the salary and training for both foreign and local trainers and local trainees by between 30% and 90%. When the scheme was launched in 2017, about five years ago, MOM positioned it as a scheme that would strengthen the Singaporean Core of workers and enhance how local and foreign workers would complement rather than compete with each other. Considering that there are quite a few sectors in which there is a real need for talent transfer to Singaporeans, such as IT where a common complaint from employers is the lack of Singaporean talent, I would have expected to see many more Singaporean workers improving their prospects through the CTP. Similarly, with the establishment of industry clusters through the Industry Transformation Roadmaps, identifying improved jobs and skills prospects across 23 sectors as a key ITM deliverable, one would have imagined more CTP applications, with more than a fair share qualifying for the highest tiers of the grant.”
“Mr Speaker, as in recent years, Budget 2021 reflects not just the Government's priorities for the upcoming Financial Year but the Government's medium term direction as well. In my view, many schemes in the Budget are a continuation of the strategic agenda laid out in previous years or jigsaw pieces of a longer term plan fleshed out elsewhere. The Government's agenda continues to be guided by the Committee for the Future Economy report released four years ago and by the more recently released Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan, amongst others. COVID-19, however, has accelerated some plans and thrown a spanner in the works of others. For example, digitalisation has found new impetus while the Changi Air Hub plans have been put on hold. Following Minister Lawrence Wong's comments at the recent Singapore Perspectives conference, I was looking forward to indications in the Budget of a reset of the Government's agenda in the areas Minister Wong highlighted. Of particular interest to me was Minister Wong's mention of a reset in our social compact to tackle inequality to keep society fluid and mobile. His discussion of a permanent shift towards stronger social safety nets, a commitment towards a greener Singapore, and a reset to strengthen solidarity in our people also made for a refreshing vision. However, the Budget did not sound like a reboot of ideas and the direction of yesteryear. To some extent, this is understandable as the country remains in the throes of a pandemic, along with talk of a K-shape recovery. With many uncertainties on the horizon, an instinct to stay the course and to adopt a nimble posture is not unexpected. I will speak on three main areas that address specific aspects of Deputy Prime Minister Heng's Budget speech.”
“The Opposition asks questions of the Government. The Government makes its position known. And I know there are individual Singaporeans outside of this House who are concerned about the privacy issues and so forth. I would just like to advise everyone, well, not everyone but those who are not comfortable with the Government's replies – all of us in the WP, as I know, have downloaded TraceTogether. As of now, they are 31 to 35 TraceTogether devices around me and 4,306 total exchanges today. So, I would like to share with Singaporeans to please download the app and use the token, because it is the safety of the entire community that is at stake, insofar, as COVID-19 is concerned. Whatever concerns that are there that you wish to raise, I am sure your parliamentarians will bring them up in Parliament and certainly the Opposition in Parliament will do so.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker, just a few follow-up questions for the Minister. The first being the Minister's revelation that he came to the knowledge that section 20 of the CPC would apply, from end October onwards. I am just reviewing the articles in our newspapers of record, The Straits Times, from end October right through early November. A number of representations made by various Ministers nothing suggested that the Government was going to make the revelation that the Minister shared in early January clear that section 20 of the CPC would apply. That actually came end October, a good two months later. Can I ask the Minister what was the Cabinet deliberating, if that was an issue with regard to the Cabinet? Or what caused the delay in coming to a landing on the time and by when the Government will make things clear to Singaporeans? The second question I have pertains to a figure that Minister gave in his speech – 58% – and correct me if I am wrong, Minister, because I may have misheard you and I apologise for that. Fifty-eight percent turned on their TraceTogether at least once a day. I believe that is what Minister said. The question actually that I asked and I think a few other Members asked was whether the Government or the Smart Nation Office or GovTech is able to track when people switched off their TraceTogether application. Because that really is the key because if for some reason people are not confident, then we have got a problem on our hands. So, how is it that the Government is able to track when people switch on their phones at least once a day, but for some reason is not able to find out when people turn off their phones? The third point I think is not specific to Minister's speech. It is the Parliamentary system of Government we have here.”
“But, effectively, that lawyer is a walking TraceTogether token. He knows something about the matter. As far as society is concerned, that is a trade-off. What do we want? In this context, Government has put out a position and I would accept, as I have, that serious crimes are something that we have to look at carefully. Hence, the Workers' Party support. But it is important, I think, for the Government to explain how critical TraceTogether information actually is. Because the public does not know. And insofar as how a conviction or a decision to prosecute turns on TraceTogether data, it is not exactly hypothetical. The hon Member Mr Christoper de Souza has talked about expanding actually the scope of Misuse of Drugs Act, for example. But if one thinks about it, we have to bring ourselves back down to the purpose of this Bill which is TraceTogether. And the simple answer to that is I do not think drug lords or criminals will be carrying TraceTogether tokens and TraceTogether applications around. But that is my position. I just wanted to verbalise my views on the points that hon Member Mr Murali made about, suggesting that this is an easy way out. I do not think that is the nub of the issue. I think it is far deeper than that.”
“I thank the hon Member Mr Murali for his comments. I would just like to pick up on a point the hon Member made about the easy way out being to just proceed as originally assured by the Government. I would suggest, very respectfully, to the hon Member that we have to take a step back and look at what is this easy way out of. And, in my humble view, the bigger issue is to ensure the safety of the population at hand and to ensure that contact tracing is successful. So, the Government obviously had to weigh the implications of going ahead, proceeding as assured by the Minister and the Government or introducing the exemptions for serious crimes at this point. In those circumstances, the critical issue in my mind is to determine which way do you go, where do you fall. And I would suggest that it is not a question of armchair philosophy or trying to defend something that is morally indefensible. Because, as a society, we have rules in very different situations. The hon Member is a criminal lawyer of some repute. Outside this Chamber, I think people like me would be going to him for advice on criminal matters. But a useful example is attorney-client privilege. I could be representing a criminal who could have admitted to me that he committed an offence but my instructions is to plead not guilty for him in Court. And that puts a lot of pressure on criminal lawyers, as the Member would know. There are two options. You do not take up the case; you drop the brief. Or you make sure you follow those instructions to a hilt because if you do not, you have committed some offences vis-a-vis the Legal Profession Act and you have breached client confidentiality. I am not suggesting an equivalence to TraceTogether. I am not suggesting that.”
“However, the absence of such a conversation in Singapore, combined with an erroneous assumption that continuing down tried and tested routes will suffice, would engender a worse outcome, even presaging a disunited population. We will all lose if that happens. COVID-19 is a crisis like no other. But insofar as finding a better balance between policing and privacy, the lessons that have been taught by this TraceTogether episode inform us that they are lessons the Government would be wise not to dismiss. To recap, Sir, the Workers' Party is prepared to support the Bill even as we look forward to the Minister's answers on the specific queries with regard to the Police's use of TraceTogether data. But, separately, and arising from this episode, I urge the Government to open a national conversation on privacy forthwith, with a view to not just prevent the weakening of trust between citizens and the state today, but to strengthen it for the Singapore of tomorrow. Thank you.”
“I would offer three suggestions in this regard. One possibility for checking against abuse and engendering confidence can be the appointment of a neutral commissioner or an ombudsman to monitor the use of such powers by the Government and, in particular, law enforcement agencies. Another possibility is an omnibus legislation like the UK's Investigatory Powers Act. This piece of legislation covers the acquisition and retention of data, including bulk personal datasets, and provides for how such material is dealt with, including oversight arrangements, amongst others. Thirdly, the Government could include a key performance indicator in the Budget Book for each relevant Ministry that measures the public's confidence in the collection and use of data collected on the one hand, and the public's right to privacy on the other. To conclude, Mr Speaker, it is important for me to restate that privacy concerns are not the domain of a small segment of Singaporeans. The international conversation has moved significantly over the past few years with recent revelations of how security agencies of democratic countries, such as the US, collect vast amounts of information about their citizens. Arising from such revelations, other democratic jurisdictions have sought to update their laws to focus on and better calibrate the balance between the state's investigatory powers and the individual's right to privacy. At the heart of this discussion is a desire for checks and balances that are fit for purpose for today's day and age. Understandably, the conversation with electorates in these countries has not been easy. Many people perceive the world to be in an Orwellian age, complete with fake news and the prospect of privacy intrusions by even private corporations.”
“If the Government is forthcoming with such information, it will engender confidence that the Government has nothing to hide, is performing its role as a state should, and that its requests are for legitimate purposes in the interest of Singaporeans. Singaporeans will also better appreciate the nature of the behind-the-scenes work that is done to keep Singapore safe and secure. And I will make this point again: this awareness and confidence will aid us in our fight against future threats. The second thing the Government could do is to conduct a broad review of the state's powers to collect data for the purposes of investigations in light of new technologies and consider how privacy concerns could be better balanced or accommodated within the legislation. Section 39 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for example, gives the Police wide leeway when investigating arrestable offences to access computers and computer data, even for computers outside of Singapore. Section 40 of the CPC allows the public prosecutor to authorise the accessing of decryption information. Statutes like the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act and others give the Police powers akin to those in the Criminal Procedure Code, although specifically scoped for those Acts. Even so, like the Criminal Procedure Code, the investigative powers of the relevant authorities are drafted broadly and do not include separate laws on how the exercise of these investigatory powers come with safeguards. Such safeguards would reassure the public that the state is acting legitimately and with sufficient regard for the individual's right to privacy. To build confidence between the citizen and the state in an era where the call for privacy will only get louder, other verification mechanisms can be considered.”
“And it would be critical for the public to understand that in Singapore at least, regulation is marching in step with the evolution of newer and more intrusive policing and data collection technologies. This is currently not the case in many parts of the world and there is an opportunity for Singapore to be a leader in this regard. To this end, I would advance that there are important actions that the Government can undertake to better dispel doubts. First, the Government should be forthcoming, without prompting, in informing the public about what data it collects and how it ensures the robustness and integrity of its processes. Second, the Government should ensure that our laws reassure Singaporean citizens and residents that investigatory powers and data collection are used for legitimate purposes and are subject to rigorous checks that protect us from the abuse of our personal data. Moving forward, a review of our existing laws may be required to achieve this. Let me discuss each of these actions in turn. The first thing the Government could do to counter cynicism and create trust is to be forthcoming about what data it collects and the safeguards to prevent misuse of information in its possession. The Government regularly asks information of tech giants like Facebook. For example, the Straits Times reported in 2018 that Facebook's semi-annual transparency report revealed that the Singapore Government had made 244 request for information concerning 310 Facebook accounts in the latter half of 2017. It would reassure the public, in my view, if the Government could tell us what it has asked the tech companies for and for what purposes. This could be done on a regular basis through the Police's annual report, for example.”
“I call on the Government to initiate an immediate conversation on the balance between the state's collection and use of data against the individual's right of privacy because many of the new technologies with public repercussions have already been rolled out. According to the latest Government Financial Statements, or GFS, MHA has invested in PolCam 3.0 and 4.0 whereas only PolCam 1.0 and 2.0 have entered the mainstream media lexicon. Intrusive technology has already extended to other areas of governance. The Government Financial Statements confirm that the Ministry of Social and Family Development has implemented video analytics, facial recognition and behavioural analytics technology at a voluntary children's home. Let that sink in for a moment – behavioural analytics technology at a children's home. What impact could befall a child if such data is hacked in a cybersecurity breach many years later? How is the problem of bias, both from a technology perspective and a human interface angle, dealt with? Who checks whether such information is secure or securely wiped? And who has a right to review this information and for how long? To counter skepticism and its resultant behaviours and to replace it with trust and cooperation, Singaporeans also need to better understand the necessity and ambit of data collection. This is especially so for a new generation who are more likely to be concerned about privacy and individual rights. The public must also be assured that the data collected and used for investigative purposes have safeguards that are robust enough with independent and external checks and balances, if necessary.”
“If we are already talking about a societal COVID-19 reset when this crisis passes, the Government should also review the lessons learnt from the roll-out of TraceTogether and, specifically, whether Singapore should actively appraise the balance between policing and citizen privacy. The mobile phone application WhatsApp recently found out the hard way what happens when people suddenly become suspicious about technology and privacy. When the company published new terms of service with a short deadline for acceptance, there was a huge backlash against WhatsApp and its corporate owner, Facebook. WhatsApp's experience shows that Singapore's experience with the TraceTogether issue is not unique. Confidence in technological tools and the institutions that control them can be lost overnight. This loss of trust engenders cynicism and push back from the public, and in an age where information travels instantaneously and fake news spreads at light speed, cynicism has to be taken very seriously and addressed squarely from a governance standpoint. In the first major debate of this parliamentary term, the Prime Minister addressed the House on Disease X, a possible outbreak even deadlier than COVID-19. In this regard, a new national research programme for epidemic preparedness and response called Prepare was announced in December 2020. The programme is meant to accelerate the production of diagnostic tools, therapies and vaccines once a major disease strikes. However, medical preparedness is only part of the fight. The other part is the battle for the trust and cooperation of the people. If Disease X strikes and another TraceTogether-type situation occurs, our fight against Disease X may be rendered ineffective and tragically thwarted.”
“This is because of some Singaporeans' residual concerns over privacy and the established discomfort about sharing cellphone data. I am of the view that such an approach would also engender greater confidence given that a public conversation on privacy has hitherto not been ventilated in a significant way in Singapore. I will return to that subject very shortly. Even so, the Workers' Party is prepared to support the Bill to allow for the use of TraceTogether data for Police investigations in the exceptional cases identified in the Bill. The main reason is because the exceptions constitute a significant reduction of the wide ambit of section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In other words, a Singaporean's right to privacy is better protected with this Bill than without it. Ms Sylvia Lim will speak further on the seven exceptions. Sir, let me move on to my last topic, which is about the longer term. The discomfort and distrust in some quarters generated by the belated disclosure on the applicability of section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code to TraceTogether is somewhat or to some extent unsurprising. A 2016 KPMG report shared that 32% of Singaporeans were extremely concerned about the handling and use of their personal data and that Singaporean consumers felt the most defenceless among Asian respondents over the way organisations handle and use their personal information. I would contend that across the population, there is a general lack of awareness about not just the Government's powers of data collection, investigation and privacy, but the rapid advance of predictive technologies for public use. As a society, many are relatively uninformed about legal or constitutional rights and responsibilities, to say nothing about the right to privacy.”
“Those who choose to switch off their Bluetooth function could do so for various reasons, a common one being that people do not want to drain their phone battery and not necessarily because of privacy concerns. We do not know for sure either way, but if the IPS report is indicative, privacy is more than likely to matter. It is therefore open to question whether the efficacy of TraceTogether for contact tracing could be compromised because of the Government's belated explanation on the use of TraceTogether data for investigative purposes. To that end, I would like to inquire if the Government is able to track the number of users of the TraceTogether app who turn off their Bluetooth function after downloading the app and, separately, who turn it off after gaining entry to a building or premise. The answer to this question will determine whether TraceTogether is working as intended or whether the Government needs to comprehensively review the public buy-in and effectiveness of the TraceTogether app and token. I now move on to the Workers' Party's position on the Bill. The Workers' Party is of the view that Singapore's number one priority should be to tackle the pandemic's public health and economic effects. Anything that compromises this priority has to give way, unless there are overwhelming good reasons. Other jurisdictions have taken a cleaner approach on contact tracing apps in line with the Government's original public statements that TraceTogether would be limited to contact tracing, period. Personally and subject to the Minister's response on the centrality of TraceTogether data for policing, I, personally, would prefer aligning the use of TraceTogether with the Government's original emphatic assurances that TraceTogether would be used for contact tracing only.”
“Against the possible benefits of using TraceTogether for fighting crime, we need to compare the likely cost to our fight against COVID-19. There was a public outcry after Minister of State Desmond Tan's reply on 4 January 2020 when Singaporeans found out that section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) applied to TraceTogether and that the Government had backtracked on earlier assurances. Some Singaporeans seemed placated when the Government announced a day later that the use of TraceTogether data would be restricted to the seven categories of crime. Others, less so. However, this House's knowledge of both support as well as resistance of Singaporeans is only anecdotal. In the middle of last week, it was confirmed that the TraceTogether signups had reached 80% from 78% some weeks earlier. However, these numbers too can give a false sense of security insofar as our contact tracing efforts are concerned. In an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) report released on 24 May 2020, out of a broadly representative sample size of the Singaporean population, 87% of respondents were agreeable to imposing strict surveillance on those who needed to be quarantined. But when the questioning moved to the employment of CCTVs and cellphones to prevent the spread of COVID-19, only 49% were agreeable to have their cellphone data tracked without their consent. Separately, more than a few people have anecdotally shared online that they will use the TraceTogether app to gain entry to a place, only to turn off Bluetooth immediately after entering. This clearly shows that a high level of downloads of the TraceTogether app does not necessarily translate to a high degree of continuous usage.”
“They have other technological tools like CCTVs. They can forensically examine mobile phones and laptops that contain massive amounts of data other than TraceTogether. They also have old-fashioned police work such as finding and interviewing witnesses using confidential informants, scrutinising the crime scene and collecting physical evidence for forensic analysis. There is a legitimate view that these tools should be more than sufficient in detecting crime and securing convictions. To know whether these other tools are enough, I would like to ask the Minister two questions about the use of TraceTogether data for actual cases: (a) For the one known case where TraceTogether was used, was the case solved, in that a suspect has been identified or charged, and how critical was TraceTogether data to solving the case? (b) How many other times has TraceTogether been used for the seven categories of serious crimes so far? There is little or no doubt that TraceTogether would make things convenient for the Police. But it is my view that convenience for the Police may not be a good enough reason to compromise the trust necessary to win the COVID-19 fight. There is an equally legitimate view that with the existing tools at their disposal, the Police are likely to have little, if any additional benefit from using TraceTogether data. I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to my questions so that we can know for sure. The answers will allow members of the public to appreciate the balance that is being struck between privacy and policing. On to my second point: would allowing these exceptions compromise the use of TraceTogether in fighting the pandemic?”
“First, what was the exact date on which Minister-in-charge of Smart Nation knew that section 20 of the Criminal Procedure code would apply to TraceTogether? Secondly and, in connection with this, was Mr Christopher de Souza's Parliamentary Question submitted before or after the Minister became aware of section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code? These questions are important for the House to understand at what point the Government determined that its original representations on the use of TraceTogether were misleading and whether it could have corrected the position and updated the public on its own initiative. Let me now move on to my second topic, the carving out of the seven categories of crimes and the Workers' Party's position on the Bill. The Workers' Party's starting point on this matter is that Singapore is as close to a wartime scenario as most Singaporeans have seen in our lifetimes. This pandemic has exceeded in the living memory of older Singaporeans only by the far greater oppression of World War II. In terms of its effects on the national consciousness, COVID-19 is perhaps on par with other upheavals such as the 1964 riots and Singapore's ejection from Malaysia in 1965. Its scale and complexity have surpassed the SARS crisis of 2003. In such a wartime scenario, the core question for this House is whether the change in the Government's position on TraceTogether data to allow for its use for serious crimes could compromise the fight against COVID-19 and jeopardise contact tracing. I will make two points in this regard. First, while we know that TraceTogether data is critical for contact tracing, we need to ask whether TraceTogether data is vital for solving these seven categories of crimes. As it stands, the Police have an abundance of investigative tools.”
“When Minister Vivian Balakrishnan admitted in Parliament that he did not consider section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the next sitting of Parliament on 5 January this year, there are Singaporeans who opined that this was not fathomable or even believable for a largely efficient Government machinery that has consistently approached COVID-19 as a whole-of-Government endeavour. They further contend that if not Ministers, at least the officials in the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Health and GovTech who conceived of TraceTogether would have known of the privacy considerations surrounding TraceTogether. Some go a step further in suspecting the Government of willful blindness on function creep, or worse, that the information surrounding the use of TraceTogether for criminal investigations may have been suppressed until the threshold of 70% of the population had downloaded the app or collected the TraceTogether token. A separate group of Singaporeans queried whether there will be consequences for those who made this mistake in promising wrongly that TraceTogether would be used only for contact tracing. They believe the Government did not do its homework. While there was no dishonesty or malice, there was a lack of care or diligence in accurately communicating the potential use of data collected by TraceTogether. I am sure Members have come across a range of opinions from residents in the course of their house visits or interactions with family and friends over the last few weeks on this matter. Whatever the view, it is apparent that the Government's handling of this matter has eroded trust from some members of the public. To this end, I would like to ask two questions of the Government and, specifically, the Minister.”
“Why was there disquiet, unhappiness and even cynicism in some quarters at the Government's belated acknowledgement that TraceTogether can be used for criminal investigations as originally explained by Minister of State Desmond Tan in Parliament last month? It comes down to a question of trust, the perceived lack of empathy over the public's privacy concerns and discomfort with sharing mobile phone data with the authorities without sufficient assurances. In fact, from a very early stage the Government clearly contemplated that there would be privacy concerns with the use of TraceTogether for contact tracing. In his broadcast of 21 April 2020, the Prime Minister said that Singapore intended to make full use of IT, including TraceTogether, which would require everyone's cooperation. He added and, I quote, "There will be some privacy concerns, but we will have to weigh these against the benefits of being able to exit from the circuit breaker and stay open safely." In the months that followed, the public were told that the number of sign-ups to TraceTogether was not satisfactory. As late as November, the multi-Ministerial Taskforce linked transiting to phase 3 in our fight against COVID-19 with requiring at least 70% of the population signing up for TraceTogether. Since then and along with the issuance of TraceTogether tokens, this minimum 70% threshold was reportedly reached on 21 November 2020, even as it had been hovering around the 50% mark around two weeks earlier.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my speech is divided into three topics. First, I will talk about the Government's error in not realising that section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to TraceTogether data. Second, I will speak on the carving out of the seven categories of offences in the Bill that permits the use of TraceTogether data and I will thereafter set out the Workers' Party's position on the Bill. Third, I will look to the longer term and reflect on the balance between the privacy rights of citizens and the growing power of the state and private companies in collecting and using data and personal information. I believe there is scope to learn important lessons from the fall-out that has ensued from the Government's admission that TraceTogether data could be used for investigatory purposes, a departure from earlier assurances that TraceTogether would only be used for contact tracing. First, the Government's error. Sir, Singaporeans are willing to take the actions necessary to combat COVID-19 when called upon by the Government if they believe these actions will help our country and all of us who live and work here. A few Singaporeans have told me that if the Government had stated upfront that TraceTogether data would be used for the seven categories of serious crimes only, they would have been prepared to prioritise the use of TraceTogether because of the imperative of fighting an epidemic, even those who could have had residual privacy concerns could have been assuaged had the Government detailed the processes and accountability regime for using TraceTogether information in investigations.”
“It would be specific to the service providers, because these are outsourced workers. There are situations – not exactly in the healthcare setting but sometimes, other settings – where the worker is on a contract for service arrangement and no Work Injury Compensation Act or WICA benefits accrue to such workers. So, I am wondering whether healthcare institutions make it a requirement for companies that provide such outsourced services to healthcare institutions, whether it is a requirement by the healthcare institutions themselves for these workers to have WICA coverage.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have one question. Does the Ministry make it a requirement for service providers to extend work injury compensation to outsourced healthcare workers?”